I remember reading something once about how the historic designation of the Greenway was was carefully specified such that it's the grade separation itself that's protected, not any specific features. So, it can't be filled in, but they can make whatever modifications they need to for the rail line when they get around to putting it in.

There could and probably will be conflicts with the various bridges and adjacent buildings that are separately protected, though.

The bridges, retaining walls, and any buildings built during the "period of signifigance" (aka the time it was built) are contributing features, but you're right, it's really a designation of the grade separation itself, not any specific feature in the separation.

Another nuance is that in the case of at least Midtown, the Greenway does not have local designation. As I understand it, projects constructed with federal or state funds or that require state or federal permits are what trigger the requirements/etc. For example, a project that I was involved in demolished a crumbling retaining wall and the state said since no federal or state funding or permitting involved, they wouldn't review or comment on the local permit (there were some local county funding involved).

Right. And if federal money is involved, it doesn't matter whether it's designated or not, just whether it's potentially historic. That's why Saint Paul might face some trouble when the time comes to construct the Grand Round trail on Johnson Pkwy, which is mostly federally funded.

Oh so they can't build a concrete tunnel for a train and a underground for a bike trail, then fill it in with dirt so they can build green space on top with a nice nature walk that is street grade?

I mean, you could always reverse the historic designation, but that would be an uphill battle. My guess is that the Greenway groups would oppose pushing the bike trail underground for aesthetic and safety reasons. And obviously the alternative--having the bike trail at-grade as part of the nature trail--would make it much less useful for cyclists.

Oh so they can't build a concrete tunnel for a train and a underground for a bike trail, then fill it in with dirt so they can build green space on top with a nice nature walk that is street grade?

I mean, you could always reverse the historic designation, but that would be an uphill battle. My guess is that the Greenway groups would oppose pushing the bike trail underground for aesthetic and safety reasons. And obviously the alternative--having the bike trail at-grade as part of the nature trail--would make it much less useful for cyclists.

No, I was suggesting an underground bike trail next to a train in a separate concrete tunnel of course.. Would be cool, expensive, but cool..

I sat on the Midtown CAC during Metro Transit's study. My understanding is that the historic designation includes embankments *and vegetation* (which everyone thought was ridiculous). The Midtown Greenway Coalition apparently supported the historic designation to preserve the Grenway for the bike path but my sense was that they would not be an impediment to rail.

don't know if it would be possible but if the problem is the wall not fitting in with the historic area, couldn't they make the aesthetics of the wall look like it was built in the same time period as the rest the historic area

Anyone know when Bottineau is supposed to advertise construction bids? Another several-month delay for Southwest will mean that Bottineau will have practically caught up in terms of project readiness. Granted, Bottineau could still run into some lengthy environmental studies (delays) itself, but it must be less than a year behind Southwest at this point. I know the FTA is not flexible at all, but it would make so much sense to bid out some of the work at the same time, particularly the parts of each line between Target Field Station and Penn Avenue. You'd think there would be some efficiency to a having a coordinated group working in those areas, in terms of heavy equipment, staging, etc.

I hope some people at the Council level are having some contingency meetings about what they'd be able to build without federal matching funds. Even if you build a line with three stations* that can be gradually expanded over time, we'd at least have way more control over our infrastructure without having to chase moving goalposts.

Edit - And I don't mean extend a stub out from Target Field station. Just build the tracks to EP and bring stations online as we can afford them.

I know it's a lot of money, but I'm increasingly sour on federal matching funds in general. I know it's a pipe dream, but I'd much rather double the transit sales tax and build things to our own needs. The amount of compliance overhead, the number of stupidly-hobbled projects, the inability to work in phases, the inability to make significant long-term transformative investments, the biases toward stupid mode choices...it's all getting really tiresome.

So, are Hornstein and Dibble actively trying to kill this project, on behalf of their influential constituents? Because they seem like they've been throwing up roadblocks at every turn, but have never formally come out against it.

So, are Hornstein and Dibble actively trying to kill this project, on behalf of their influential constituents? Because they seem like they've been throwing up roadblocks at every turn, but have never formally come out against it.

I'm wondering the same thing. I also must admit that I used to think that you might be Senator Dibble...